Germany has shut its border to travellers from Ireland and Portugal in an effort to halt the spread of coronavirus variants that are more-easily transmitted. The German government has added those nations to an entry ban that already includes travellers from Brazil, the United Kingdom and South Africa, it says on 29 January. The prohibition runs from 30 January to 17 February. Additional restrictions for passengers from the African countries of Lesotho and Swaziland will be imposed from 31 January, Germany adds. There are exceptions for German citizens and permanent residents, as well as those transiting through Germany to non-Schengen region destinations. However, these travellers may not leave transit areas at major air hubs Frankfurt and Munich. “The dynamism of the spread of the variants is particularly worrying in these countries,” says the government regulation. “With an increased entry of the above-mentioned virus variant strains into the Federal Republic of Germany, there could be a rapid increase in the number of cases. The associated and worrying burden on medical facilities to protect the population in the Federal Republic of Germany should be avoided.” German flag carrier Lufthansa currently operates 55 weekly flights to the affected countries. It is as yet unclear how many of these will be cancelled. The prohibition is the first such policy Germany has enacted unilaterally without coordinating with the broader European Union. Germany lists 160 nations in a “high risk group”. Travellers from those countries undergo additional screening when entering Germany. Also on 29 January, Canada said its airlines are halting flights to Mexico and the Caribbean for three months, until 30 April. That effort too is aimed at halting the spread of new Covid-19 variants. The ban comes when many winter-weary Canadians would typically travel south for holidays.

US regional carrier PSA Airlines has removed “most” of its fleet of MHIRJ Aviation CRJ-series regional jets from service so as to inspect nose landing-gear doors. “Out of an abundance of caution, PSA Airlines has temporarily removed most of its aircraft from service in order to complete a necessary, standard inspection on the nose-gear door,” PSA parent American Airlines says. “We are working with PSA and the FAA to immediately address the issue.” “The issue is related to three nuts/bolts on the nose-gear doors,” American adds. PSA’s fleet includes 129 CRJ-series jets, including 60 CRJ700s and 69 CRJ900. “PSA Airlines removed a number of its… regional jets from service after discovering a maintenance item that required immediate attention,” the US Federal Aviation Administration says. “The airline voluntarily disclosed the matter to the FAA, and the agency is working with the airline to address the situation.” The FAA provides no other details. “We are working with our customers to arrange new accommodations on other flights and we are working to return the impacted aircraft to service,” American says . MHIRJ, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries unit that acquired the CRJ programme from Bombardier in 2020, did not respond immediately to a request for comment. Dayton, Ohio-based PSA operates routes for American from hubs in Charlotte and Philadelphia, according to its website.

Critical to pilots’ acceptance of the Boeing 737 Max’s re-entry into service is the assurance that a serious out-of-trim situation can be easily resolved without the risk of manual controls becoming impossible to manipulate owing to aerodynamic forces. Not only will aircraft need to be modified but Max simulators will also have to be upgraded to ensure they accurately replicate the trim characteristics and the forces pilots will encounter. Investigation into the loss of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max highlighted the crew’s vain attempt to counter a significant trim imbalance – caused by the speed-trim system’s controversial MCAS software – by using the stabiliser trim wheel at high airspeed. The US FAA states that the force requirements to manually trim the 737 Max were an “area of intense focus” for the Ethiopian accident inquiry. Modification of the Max’s flight control software limits the maximum mis-trim that can occur for any foreseeable failure of the aircraft’s speed-trim system, of which MCAS is a part. The FAA says this ensures the pilot can maintain pitch control using only the control column, “without requiring exceptional pilot skill, strength or alertness” – a response to comments received during consultation which suggested that pilots ought to undergo annual strength tests. While the FAA is confident that the control column would be sufficient to deal with trim issues, it has also evaluated the manual trim system in the “unlikely event” that manual trim would be necessary. This evaluation included analysis of manual trim-wheel forces across various scenarios and testing to assess the strength capability of an “anthropometric cross-section” of both male and female pilots. Flight-testing under maximum out-of-trim conditions – beyond those possible for failure of the revised MCAS – has served to validate the trim-wheel forces as well as the crew’s ability to control the aircraft. “Manual trim-wheel forces meet FAA safety standards and do not require exceptional pilot skill or strength nor any special or unique handling techniques as suggested by some of the commenters,” the regulator states, adding that improved ‘runaway stabiliser’ procedures will further ensure that control forces remain “manageable”. These procedural revisions include specific notification to pilots that reducing airspeed lowers the air loads on the stabiliser, in turn reducing the effort needed for manual trim. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has conducted its own review of the Boeing modifications and the FAA’s analyses. EASA says the forces needed to operate the trim-wheel have been re-evaluated and it is satisfied that pilots will “not be faced” with a situation in which these manual forces are too high to recover control in the event of a trim runaway. It says it proposed a methodology for Boeing to demonstrate adequate forces against pilot strength, which was subsequently adopted. “This requires that a single pilot at the lower end of the human capability should be able to move the trim wheel, using one or two hands, for all of the out-of-trim conditions which could result from failures not shown to be extremely improbable,” says EASA.